Does Wi-Fi Radiation Affect Brain Function?

Does Wi-Fi Radiation Affect Brain Function?
4 (80%) 98 votes

What have more than 100 studies on Wi-Fi and human brain wave modulation found?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

I’ve addressed how cell phones may affect brain function, and how both cell phones and Wi-Fi may affect male fertility, but what about the effects of Wi-Fi on brain functioning?

“The possible existence of cognitive effects of [these kinds of radiofrequency energies] has been one of the more contentious discussions in the forever-contentious issue of whether exposure…has any health consequences” whatsoever.

Wi-Fi has been called an “uncontrolled global experiment on the health of [hu]mankind.” The effects of radiofrequency fields gained new urgency after the World Health Organization officially declared cell phone radiation to be “a ‘possible’…human carcinogen,” based on brain tumor risks. But, their decision “has no [direct] relevance to [the] possible health effects of Wi-Fi,” since the exposures are so much different. We may absorb 100 times less radiation in a typical exposure to Wi-Fi compared to cell phones, but you don’t know if there are effects…until you put it to the test.

“Can Wi-Fi affect brain function?” “To date, more than 100 studies have been published on the effects of [these kinds of] emissions on [human brain wave patterns, as measured by EEG].” “While the results are mixed, a fairly consistent finding is that [even a] short [duration of] exposures to the head [can] produce small, but statistically significant, changes in the EEG of resting and sleeping subjects.” This effect is acknowledged by most health agencies, but the question is: what do you do with that information? For example, a review sponsored by the European governing body concluded that the ‘‘relevance of such small…changes remains unclear,” and we don’t even know how it’s happening at all. Some have suggested it’s an artifact of the test, and that EEG wires may be acting “as antennas that carry” the waves straight to the brain, in effect contributing to the changes that it’s been set up to measure.

Either way, you don’t see the kind of neurocognitive effects with Wi-Fi exposure that you do to cell phones. For example, “[no] measurable effects [were found on] reaction time…or sustained attention.” Now, this was testing 2.4 gigahertz Wi-Fi, but if anything, we “would expect even lower levels of exposure” from the newer 5 gigahertz Wi-Fi “due to the shallower penetration depth.”

Though more accurately, “a person who spends hours a day glued to a smartphone or tablet may very well experience all sorts of neurocognitive effects—[but] from the use of the technology, not from [the radiation].”

It’s interesting; there’s a large literature out there about the “health implications of [these] new… technologies” for young people, but it’s about the content. For example, never before in history has such “[s]exually explicit material [been] indiscriminately available to youth,” and we need to ask ourselves as a society what effect that may be having. “[G]irls and boys were being exposed to a ‘colossal’ amount of digital media on smartphones,” which makes access to pornographic material all too easy, cheap, and anonymous.

No longer confined to homes and bedrooms, “young people can [now] watch pornography in school,” out in public, just a touch of a button away, and researchers have only begun cataloguing the effects this may have on young people’s attitudes and behaviors.

Most college students these days report seeing online pornography as a minor, before age 18. Of 1,500 high school boys surveyed, the vast majority admit to accessing web porn, and nearly one in three for more than an hour at a time. What is that teaching our next generation of men?

Researchers sat through and content coded 400 videos from mainstream Internet porn sites, and more than a third of the videos displayed acts of physical violence against women, such as gagging or choking. Yeah, but does watching such material lead to sexually aggressive behaviors? Fifteen hundred 10 to 15-year-olds were followed for years to see if there was link between intentional exposure to such material and later sexually aggressive behaviors, such as sexual assault. They found that exposure to violent porn over time “predicted an almost 6-fold increase in the odds of self-reported sexual [aggression].” The question, of course, though, is which came first? A major difficulty with interpreting this kind of research is that teens predisposed to that kind of behavior are of course the ones who may be drawn to that material in the first place; so, no cause-and-effect link can be established. All we can do as parents is “closely monitor what [our] children” are doing, to the best of our abilities.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credits: Thuglas via wikipedia and Andres Urena via unsplash. Images have been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

I’ve addressed how cell phones may affect brain function, and how both cell phones and Wi-Fi may affect male fertility, but what about the effects of Wi-Fi on brain functioning?

“The possible existence of cognitive effects of [these kinds of radiofrequency energies] has been one of the more contentious discussions in the forever-contentious issue of whether exposure…has any health consequences” whatsoever.

Wi-Fi has been called an “uncontrolled global experiment on the health of [hu]mankind.” The effects of radiofrequency fields gained new urgency after the World Health Organization officially declared cell phone radiation to be “a ‘possible’…human carcinogen,” based on brain tumor risks. But, their decision “has no [direct] relevance to [the] possible health effects of Wi-Fi,” since the exposures are so much different. We may absorb 100 times less radiation in a typical exposure to Wi-Fi compared to cell phones, but you don’t know if there are effects…until you put it to the test.

“Can Wi-Fi affect brain function?” “To date, more than 100 studies have been published on the effects of [these kinds of] emissions on [human brain wave patterns, as measured by EEG].” “While the results are mixed, a fairly consistent finding is that [even a] short [duration of] exposures to the head [can] produce small, but statistically significant, changes in the EEG of resting and sleeping subjects.” This effect is acknowledged by most health agencies, but the question is: what do you do with that information? For example, a review sponsored by the European governing body concluded that the ‘‘relevance of such small…changes remains unclear,” and we don’t even know how it’s happening at all. Some have suggested it’s an artifact of the test, and that EEG wires may be acting “as antennas that carry” the waves straight to the brain, in effect contributing to the changes that it’s been set up to measure.

Either way, you don’t see the kind of neurocognitive effects with Wi-Fi exposure that you do to cell phones. For example, “[no] measurable effects [were found on] reaction time…or sustained attention.” Now, this was testing 2.4 gigahertz Wi-Fi, but if anything, we “would expect even lower levels of exposure” from the newer 5 gigahertz Wi-Fi “due to the shallower penetration depth.”

Though more accurately, “a person who spends hours a day glued to a smartphone or tablet may very well experience all sorts of neurocognitive effects—[but] from the use of the technology, not from [the radiation].”

It’s interesting; there’s a large literature out there about the “health implications of [these] new… technologies” for young people, but it’s about the content. For example, never before in history has such “[s]exually explicit material [been] indiscriminately available to youth,” and we need to ask ourselves as a society what effect that may be having. “[G]irls and boys were being exposed to a ‘colossal’ amount of digital media on smartphones,” which makes access to pornographic material all too easy, cheap, and anonymous.

No longer confined to homes and bedrooms, “young people can [now] watch pornography in school,” out in public, just a touch of a button away, and researchers have only begun cataloguing the effects this may have on young people’s attitudes and behaviors.

Most college students these days report seeing online pornography as a minor, before age 18. Of 1,500 high school boys surveyed, the vast majority admit to accessing web porn, and nearly one in three for more than an hour at a time. What is that teaching our next generation of men?

Researchers sat through and content coded 400 videos from mainstream Internet porn sites, and more than a third of the videos displayed acts of physical violence against women, such as gagging or choking. Yeah, but does watching such material lead to sexually aggressive behaviors? Fifteen hundred 10 to 15-year-olds were followed for years to see if there was link between intentional exposure to such material and later sexually aggressive behaviors, such as sexual assault. They found that exposure to violent porn over time “predicted an almost 6-fold increase in the odds of self-reported sexual [aggression].” The question, of course, though, is which came first? A major difficulty with interpreting this kind of research is that teens predisposed to that kind of behavior are of course the ones who may be drawn to that material in the first place; so, no cause-and-effect link can be established. All we can do as parents is “closely monitor what [our] children” are doing, to the best of our abilities.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credits: Thuglas via wikipedia and Andres Urena via unsplash. Images have been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

Whoa, that video took quite a turn! Sometimes that happens when I’m researching a topic. I just go where the science leads, and the internet porn angle seemed to me the greatest potential health threat.

For those who just want to stick to the effects of the electromagnetic radiation, I have a bunch of other videos on cell phones and Wi-Fi. The few I mentioned are Do Cell Phones Lower Sperm Counts?, Does Laptop Wi-Fi Lower Sperm Counts?, and Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function?

Here are the rest:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

137 responses to “Does Wi-Fi Radiation Affect Brain Function?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. I’m a long term follower of nutritionfacts since it’s start.
    My question is: When will Dr. Greger update his vitamin D recommendations?
    This year in January the largest and longest study on Vitamin D, with over 5 years duration and more than 25,000 people, came out and found no positive benefit of vitamin D supplements.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944
    Now it has also been shown that the main promoter and researcher on vitamin D, author of “the vitamin D solution” took money from the supplement industry for decades:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html

    Dr. Greger himself said in his video about antioxidant supplements, that they don’t work and one has to get it from the source = real food, in this case here it would be directly from the sun.

    1. Buck Institute study finds vitamin D may help extend life span-

      https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6276348-181/buck-institute-study-finds-vitamin

      Vitamin D-3 could ‘reverse’ damage to heart –

      Could D-3 reverse cardiovascular damage?

      The study authors note that while their findings came from tests performed on a cellular model of high blood pressure, “[T]he implications of the influence of vitamin D-3 on dysfunctional endothelium is much broader.”

      They suggest that vitamin D-3 has the potential to significantly reverse the damage that high blood pressure, diabetes, atherosclerosis, and other diseases inflict on the cardiovascular system.

      “There are not many,” Prof. Malinski adds, “if any, known systems which can be used to restore cardiovascular endothelial cells which are already damaged, and vitamin D-3 can do it.”

      “This is a very inexpensive solution to repair the cardiovascular system. We don’t have to develop a new drug. We already have it.”

      –Prof. Tadeusz Malinski
      https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320802.php

    2. Daniel and dr.Greger , I suppose you would also say than that the Linus Pauling research on vit c,ascorbic acid as an anti-oxidant is also false,even though he won two nobel prizes?

      1. Foster Goodwill

        There are many claims about vitamin C circulating on the internet . Unfortunately, some are just plain wrong while others are based on faulty assessments of the evidence. You might find it helpful to look at the Linus Pauling Institute’s summary of the scientific evidence for a balanced assessment of the issue

        https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-C

        1. Stil, and this is just anecdotal/observational… animals make their own Vitamin C while humans have to get ours from outside our bodies, and since it is water soluble, daily.

          I’ve observed animals heal from horrendous wounds that would likely be infected in a human. Is the sourced Vitamin C the difference? (Shrugs shoulders before saying)… all I know is when I’ve had an open wound and poured some Vitamin C powder on it, the wound clotted and scabbed over, then eventually healed.

          Something similar with my Mother at a very advanced age. She bumped her leg below the knee and it became one of those draining wounds. I had to use the Vitamin C powder on it a number of days, but finally it too scabbed over and healed.

          Like I said, anecdotal. There just weren’t enough wounds at one time at our house to do empirical.

          1. Lonie, that’s interesting, A friend’s mother has a wound like that, and it just won’t heal in-spite of going to wound care weekly,
            Vit C powder cheap, easy thing to try.

            1. Marilyn Kaye, just want to say don’t give up if it doesn’t stop the flow in just a few applications. In the case of my wound there was blood flow and I suspect there was some sort of opposite pH reaction initially, though I don’t know if that had anything to do with the clotting/scabbing.

              In the case of my Mother’s wound, she had been at my sister’s home for a visit and she had tried to doctor her wound the old fashioned way with Hydrogen Peroxide and a bandage. I left the wound open and applied the Vitamin C crystals. There was no blood in the ooze and that’s why I think it may have taken longer to finally stop the flow.

              Speaking of longer, my wound took a long time before I could peel off the scab. I think taking longer to heal may be why it didn’t leave a scar.

            2. Marilyn,

              If that doesn’t work:

              PEMF or cold laser and I think even infrared might work.

              Infrared would be the cheapest of those.

              There are $25 and less expensive than that bulbs on Amazon. There are heat lamp and LED versions.

              The cold laser video I watched was a Dt Burke on YouTube. He has very graphics pictures.

              I have used the Micropulse ICES PEMF successfully for so many things.

              It is excellent for pain relief and wound healing.

              Earth pulse and Sora Pulse are other cheaper ones.

              1. Chiropractors often do cold laser.

                I bought one, but it was for my dog.

                Vetrolaser or something like that.

                I have used it on myself before trying it on him. It is subtle, like pointing a laser pointer at your hand.

                People actually do just buy a laser pointer and use that, if I remember properly. Wavelength matters, but it is more don’t point it at anybody’s face. My cousin has a naturopath who has a PEMF. Cheaper to buy a cheap one. I think he paid $1000 for a group of sessions. I think you can get a basic earthpulse for less than $400.

            3. Marilyn Kaye, in case the VitC doesn’t work – or maybe in addition – think about medical grade honey. My Father had an infection in his achilles tendon injury that was so bad some of the tendon had to be excised (no blood flow in tendons). This injury would heal over lightly and then open up again for 15 years never completely healing. It affected his walking because of the shortening of the tendon. He had to sleep with his foot raised in a chair for years. It was an awful ordeal.
              I finally got him to a wound clinic in NCarolina where the physician used medical grade honey bandages. It healed for the first time. A huge difference.
              Hope this is helpful information.

        2. Mr Fumblefingers, I’d be interested to know your take on vitamin d.

          It seems to me that vitamin d being a necessary nutrient with important functions, is vital to take for those who are unable to get adequate sun such as during the winter months depending on region.

          There are actually straight-from-the-source forms of vitamin d3 supplements. I take one during the winter that is directly from lichen.

    3. Daniel,

      He just recently put up his Vitamin D recommendation on his blog.

      The concept of the supplements as being useless is an exaggeration.

      With dark-skinned people, they actually prevented cancer at a statistically significant level.
      With other people, there was a statistically significant improvement in mortality.

      The fact that the people in the study were not separated into categories of people who were deficient versus not deficient, we do not know if they had removed the people who already got enough Vitamin D from the sun or food from the studies if that would have made the benefit even more powerful. We also don’t know whether they used enough Vitamin D, for instance, 3/4ths of males are obese and 60% of females are obese and those people do need much higher doses, especially when they become elderly. The elderly, dark-skinned, northern hemisphere and obese people can’t get enough from the sun without spending an inordinate amount of time outdoors.

      There are studies where even 7-year-olds in Iceland (not Greenland) were already beginning to show a deficiency in Vitamin D during the Fall. In Northern Europe, nearly ALL of the young people were deficient by the Winter and some of us know that young people are the ones who are still outdoors every day at school, so for them to become deficient, means that we don’t store enough Vitamin D to not supplement and it means that a half hour or hour per day with the face exposed isn’t enough. Kids do spend that much time outdoors in the Fall with recess, soccer, football, track and field, field hockey, cheerleading, watching school sports, jumping in leaves, riding bicycles, waiting at bus stops, shooting baskets, inline skating, skateboarding, recess at school. Kids wear less clothing and have more efficient bodies. For them to become deficient means that everybody else is at risk.

      There are groups of people like schizophrenics which are over 3 times more likely to go into psychoses if they allow themselves to be deficient. There are pain studies where Vitamin D is very helpful. (With an epidemic of addiction from pain-killers, having anything at all help with pain is useful.)

      1. I think my point is that because people get Vitamin D from the sun and from food, it is really challenging to get an accurate enough study with a topic like “Does it prevent cancer?”

        I was MUCH more intrigued that it did work with the black community because they represent a population which is more likely to need to supplement.

        It made me think that there could be issues skewing the results like them not giving enough to raise the level enough for obese people or elderly people or like people in the group which isn’t supplementing knowing that and trying to get sunlight outside or drinking more milk.

        It worked for the black people becomes a WHY didn’t it work for the white people and obese people and elderly people or did you not separate that out enough?

        1. Is there something biologically different about black people that it helped or something dietarily different between the cultures that prevented white people from receiving the benefit?

          If I was a researcher, I would be wanting to solve for that mystery.

          Yes, I wouldn’t probably have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it, but people who are just calling Vitamin D supplementation “worthless” don’t have any imagination or sense of wonder.

          Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

            1. How about this?

              The Vitamin d researchers could NOT say that the unsupplemented side had to remain deficient for years and couldn’t forbid them from going outside.

              In a way, it might have been comparing people who may have been deficient in a few seasons to a group which they supplemented, so it wouldn’t be as wide a swing as it would be in individuals lives.

              It actually prevented cancer in the white group, too, but just not by a statistically significant level.

              That is where I go back to questions about the black versus white group.

              Did they give more to the black people, but maybe underestimate how much the obese people need?

              1. I was looking at the autism study and there was a does of broccoli sprouts which was for people who weighed 100 pounds to 200 pounds. The same does. Studies do things like that.

                1. I also highly suspect that people who know that they cannot supplement Vitamin D end up going outside and they are going to do something like walking. (It used to be sunbathing, but now people frown on sunbathing and end up walking instead.)

                  If so, walking would have interfered with the statistical significance.

                  https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/exercise-linked-with-lower-risk-of-13-types-of-cancer.html

                  Just being in a health study would interfere with the statistical significance a little bit.

                  1. I also highly suspect that people who know that they cannot supplement Vitamin D end up going outside and they are going to do something like walking.
                    —————————————————————-
                    I wonder if they controlled for being outside and fully clothed. I’ve read in the past that a single layer of clothing does not protect from the suns rays. I’m sure denims probably would be protective but I suspect some thin shirt or another just might allow some sun through.

          1. Deb

            I remember reading somewhere that white people make six times more vitamin D than people living near the equator.

            Studies like the ones you mention probably don’t control for endogenously manufactured vitamin D when analysing the effects of supplementation on vitamin C on ethnically mixed populations.

            It is also possible for people to have low circulating levels of vitamin D while having high tissue levels of vitamin D. Supplementation with vitamin D in such circumstances can even be harmful.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975517/#R7

            There is probably a lot we don’t know about this so, while taking a D3/K2 supplement myself, I am still cautious about the enthusiastic advocacy of vitamin D supplementation that we often see. Regular daily sun exposure is probably still the best/safest course for white people, especially Americans. People in the US are, all other things being equal. much more exposed to the sun than people in the UK and in most of Europe who live at higher Northern latitudes.

            Note also that low serum vitamin D (like low cholesterol) may actually be a marker for disease and therefore simply increasing vitamin D levels is not always going to help any more than taking cough syrup for a tubercular cough will reduce TB mortality

            ‘Plasma/serum 25(OH)D concentration is widely used as a biomarker of vitamin D status because it
            reflects vitamin D supply from cutaneous synthesis and diet but also because it has a long half-life in
            the circulation (about 2-3 weeks) and is not under tight homeostatic control. A limitation of its use is
            that it has been observed to decrease in response to acute inflammation, so low concentrations (e.g.,
            observed in conditions such as cancer) may reflect an underlying inflammatory state. The relationship
            between vitamin D exposure and serum 25(OH)D concentration may also be influenced by Body Mass
            Index and genetic variation.
            S.11 There are also limitations associated with the methods used for measurement of serum 25(OH)D
            concentration, since measurements can vary considerably (15-20%) depending on the type of assay
            used. In addition, there is considerable variation between different laboratories using the same
            methods. These limitations have implications for interpretation of studies that have examined the
            relationship between serum 25(OH)D concentration and health outcomes.’
            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/537616/SACN_Vitamin_D_and_Health_report.pdf

            1. Thanks, Tom!

              Yes, diseases can lower it.

              But the study I am talking about tested it for preventing cancer and there was non-statistically significant protection against cancer in whites and a small, but statistically significant protection against cancer in blacks and a small, but statistically significant improvement in mortality rates in both.

              That is one of the studies where people started calling supplementing worthless. This is one of VegSources “I told you so that Dr. Greger was wrong studies” and I looked at it and thought, “A mortality improvement even if you have cancer? That doesn’t sound worthless.”

              It was right when my brother was diagnosed with cancer and I immediately saw mortality improvement, plus pain relief, plus potentially protecting the DNA, as already pretty good.

              If the researchers knew how to supplement for dark skin, but didn’t estimate the levels properly for the degree of overweight people were that could be something which changes results. Plus, it was a multi-year study. If the people gained 5 pounds per year (which does happen in America) then did they adjust the dose enough.

              Boy, I wish I could talk with the researcher and ask things like that.

      2. Deb,

        We agree that humans need vitamin D, but in almost all cases supplement pills have been proven harmful e.g. vitamin A, E, calcium pills etc. or useless, exception B12 produced by bacteria.

        You cannot let your children eat only candy and argue that taking a vitamin C pill will prevent scurvy, which it probably would.
        An apple has thousands of active ingredients not only the vitamin C, that is one of the main argument of nutritionfacts to eat more real fruits and vegetables and Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s book “Whole”.

        Sun exposure produces much more than Vitamin D [in the skin], also Q10 in the brain and many other reactions in the body.

        To just ignore that and take a supplement pill is the same reductionism thinking the book Whole argued against. So in the same way people are only sitting inside and tending to their computers & smartphones and hoping to get all health benefits from taking a D supplement pill.

        New research from Sweden came to the conclusion, “Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor of a similar magnitude as smoking, in terms of life expectancy.”
        This gives a good overview:
        https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science

        1. Daniel, Dr. Greger references sun as a source of vitamin D, not everyone is always capable of getting adequate sun exposure. Vitamin D does not appear to be harmful but rather helpful. But Dr. Greger doesn’t say it’s necessary to supplement, just necessary to make sure you’re getting adequate amounts.

          I agree with you about the sun, though. I don’t believe that vitamin D supplementation is a good substitute, but a good way to avoid deficiency if you’d otherwise have it. I imagine that the sun has a VAST array of important factors to our health including and beyond that of vitamin D.

    4. Daniel, a study about vitamin D supplementation needs to include K2 supplementation for proper distribution of the nutrient, otherwise the results have little meaning. Also, supplementation is just that, it enhances a good nutrient dense, plant based diet. It’s not a bandaid for serious lifestyle-related maladies.

    5. “found no positive benefit of vitamin D supplements.”
      Well, you need to look at the study in detail. For normal BMI, it certainly did reduce cancer incidence, and when excluding the first two years. Both make sense. The latter because one has to assume Vitamin D has a long-term, chronic effect on disease development.
      And a normal BMI most likely means you will reach higher serum levels at equal supplement doses. Considering this also exposes a fundamental flaw about the study. No follow-up serum Vitamin D was measured. People respond very differently to equal doses, and the question is not whether BLIND supplementation will be benefitial, but if high serum levels achieved by supplementation are benefitial. Only from a low-cost public health perspective does it make sense to measure the outcome of blind supplementation, and only after efficiacy was measured (and proven) in a more rigid, data driven study setup, which would certainly have to include measurement of follow up serum levels.

      For me, this study is a reason to supplement more than anything else.

    1. I agree. It’s extremely annoying and he does it on purpose as if he is some kind of Oracle speaking down to the common people.

    2. You have to change the speed of his voice on the app. If he sounds super slow, that’s the reason, it’s on half-speed by default. I didn’t know this until about a year later, LOL.

      1. Diane, indeed. It’s really gross that people would make senselessly cruel and immature comments like that in general, let alone about a man who is giving out a FREE and thorough education to HELP the very morons who might insult him.

    3. This is strictly an information outlet. If you want to be coddled, go elsewhere.

      For people to say “well, i dont need this information!” due to his voice is silly… there is a treasure trove here.

      I challenge you to find a better source of up-to-date nutritional information.

    4. Antonia, I think people like you who make comments like yours should be required to post their OWN subject of insult; I think we should all get to hear YOUR voice and tell you what we personally think about it.

  2. I usually love the information in the videos, and I find it interesting when you tackle topics outside of nutrition, but this one leaves me a bit confused. It feels like you’re saying “who cares about the possible effects of Wi-Fi radiation, it’s probably marginal, and in any case there’s worse, there’s P0RN that’s potentially more damaging!!!!”. It feels a bit like a strawman argument and a click-bait title since half the content of the video has nothing to do with the title. As damaging as porn could be, watching porn has a behavioural effect, it doesn’t give you tumors. Wi-Fi might. Or at least we wonder if; and that’s what I was hoping to find an anwer to whatching this video.
    So to me the 2 topics have nothing to do with each other and shouldn’t have been put in the same video, as it creates a connection/comparison between the 2. I find it dishonest.

    1. quote: So to me the 2 topics have nothing to do with each other and shouldn’t have been put in the same video, as it creates a connection/comparison between the 2. I find it dishonest.

      Elias: I totally agree! also don’t like his tone. Condescending.

  3. In the last Q&A on youtube, Dr. G was telling someone he ate the orange seeds. Just came here to ask for confirmation, did I get that right? Can I just blend the whole orange with the seeds in it? Would be more convenient and maybe healthier.

    @Daniel

    No update needed. Dr. Greger does not recommend vitamin D supplementation above the RDA’s. Know there’s a difference between reaching the RDA and supplementing above that. In other words, if you lack vitamin D and take something to reach normal required levels, this would not be called “supplementation”.
    People receiving money to promote vit. D supplements not really relevant here, you either reach RDA or you don’t (bloodtest), if not, take the normal amounts, supplements are fine. I use liquid drops, they are cheaper.

    1. I eat ALL my seeds (with the exception of apple and apricot), but even they are minimal. A seed has enough nutrients to grow a whole tree. Papaya seeds are a little hard to take (although good for dysentery). Eat your seeds.

      Plus, they area great way to track your ‘poop’. (1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, or the average American at 5 days)

  4. The internet itself, specifically so-called ‘social’ media is the bane of current humanity. Kill your Fakebook account where people consistently lie about themselves, realize twitter is for people who just want to whine and bicker online, and see that instagram is mostly for narcissists.

    1. “Kill your Fakebook account where people consistently lie about themselves, realize twitter is for people who just want to whine and bicker online, and see that instagram is mostly for narcissists.”

      Yes, all that AND a type of pornography, which is like a mouse pushing the button to reward someone for abusing human beings in their minds.

      Watching PBS and the history of black people in America, training people to be narcissists who get pleasure from abusing people and murdering people is not a good idea.

    2. Oh, yes, and how about the death of civility from extensive use of [anti]social media?

      How’s this for discussion etiquette: When you contribute to a forum like this one, imagine you are speaking to the recipient face-to-face. Imagine that Dr. G has earned a black belt in Karate and carries Nunchakus with him at all times. How would you express yourself to him in person? Then type that in the forum.

      Taking a swing at someone online and then running away is cowardice, the real bane of humanity.

      1. I would say exactly what I posted. If he hits me because I said I don’t like the way he speaks, he will end up in jail and I’ll sue for millions. Also, what makes you think I can’t defend myself?

    3. Instagram blows my mind… Why does anyone want to look at pictures of everyone else? Why does anyone want to post that many pictures of themselves? Hard to think of it as anything other than narcissism at varying degrees. Pictures don’t even mean anything anymore, there’s so many of them that it’s like… who cares? It would also be nice if people could be in a moment instead of taking a hundred pictures of everything they do. And it’s really making people demented. Someone drowned in a southern state a month ago and died, while the paramedics were there trying to resuscitate him on the beach, a bunch of disgusting pieces of absolute shit pulled out their disgusting phones and recorded it…. If I had been there, I would have stood up and shamed them all to say the least.

  5. Don’t understand on the transcript on this latest video how one minutes he’s talking about the effects of WiFi on the brain, then next about hard porn? What’s the link?

      1. Oh yeah, sir sure Geoffrey… Dr. Greger has an evil plan to deflect any potential dangers of wifi… He thought to himself, “how do I distract from this?!….Of course, PORN!” Give me a freaking break. Please re-watch the video to see the connection or view other comments here which point it out.

  6. How can you turn a video about Wifi and RF into a video about Porn?
    It is not related at all.

    If you are going to do a video about porn, then it has to be seperated from an RF video.
    Maybe – Porn and the effect it has on children – but this is a ridiculous video

    As a follower for years this really is weird and essentially goes into clickbait, as the first minute is about RF and the rest is about porn which has nothing to do with RF

    1. Joshua,

      Respecting human beings is something we need to teach young people about and not doing that is why there are 300-something serial killers at any given time in America.

      On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States — more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.[i]

      https://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

    2. Joshua – Thank you for interjecting this particular piece of information. Although the subject of porn is a very large topic in and of itself, I’m glad you brought this link to the attention of the readers here. Women’s true needs and true voices have been silenced and subjugated for decades and lifetimes and it’s time for women’s voices to help change the conversation about sex. I urge everyone to listen to the link that Joshua shared with us.

  7. I love Dr Gregor’s narration- always have- I think it’s hilarious and entertaining.

    Sure Wi-Fi radiation and porn is a bit of a non-sequitor. But I think people are mostly mad because they think porn is ok.

    It’s not.

    Trafficking and objectifying women is not ok. It’s not freedom it’s not progress. It’s bad for kids, bad for women- bad for men. It’s addicting- there’s no debate. It destroys families, marriages, jobs, and lives. Thanks for just saying it out loud.

    If you have an addiction to porn you can get free of it. It effects you and it’s not victimless. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that it doesn’t hurt anyone. We’re concerned about dirty pharma money- my goodness porn is just as bad and they have more people using than any statin.

    1. Olive the feminist,

      Thank you for making your voice heard.

      Men are raped and murdered and sexually, physically, mentally and emotionally abused as children, too.

      I have been watching a lot of history and what is the Holocaust or what happened to blacks in this country but a bunch of arrogant people who learned to dehumanize segments of our society and porn is the last “acceptable way to dehumanize people” so that people can feel powerful when they are not.

      1. I am not a feminist. I am a humanist.

        But I do understand why feminists exist.

        Each group who has fought for the right to not let power-hungry narcissists dehumanize them is alright to me.

    2. “But I think people are mostly mad because they think porn is ok.” => I don’t think that’s the issue people are having here. Besides those who hate Dr. Greger’s voice, it seems the other people complaining about this video, myself included, complain about the way it’s edited, with a title about wi-fi radiations and most of the content having nothing to do with that, but with porn. For me, he could have switched from wi-fi to “Twitter is the cesspool of the Internet, it fosters hate and racism and bullying” or “worse than wi-fi, you can learn how to make a bomb on the Internet!!!!”, I would have had the same issue.
      The video is conflating two issues that have nothing to do with each other, without even properly answering about the danger of either, said danger being completely different in nature. I’m pretty sure a video about the dangers of wi-fi radiations and another completely different video about the dangers of pornography would have been perfectly fine for any of the complainers (minus those who hate our good Dr. Greger’s voice)

      1. Elias,

        I actually agree with you that it is a bait and switch.

        The people complaining about Dr. Greger’s voice can read the transcript or go to any other doctor covering these topics.

        And I will say that I hate their voice – meaning the sarcasm and negativity and wanting to humiliate Dr. Greger is so loud that I hate it.

        Dr. Greger, you have 2 ways of presenting and some people prefer your natural voice and some people only watch you because you use your charismatic professional voice, which I know is what radio professionals use and people say they hate it, but when someone who isn’t charismatic just talks on the radio, people get bored and don’t listen. There is probably a balance and people are on the wrong setting on speed.

        You cannot possibly please everybody and my advice is to stay focused on the end goal of what is being communicated with the material as much as possible.

        When you give dazzlingly brilliant information nobody complains about your voice. This one had enough gap of understanding of what the topic is that people start analyzing you, instead of being blown away by the message. Selah.

        1. Oh please. He is selling books and getting paid for views on YouTube. Do you think this is charity work he’s doing. Also, he is not correct about everything. His voice on this and most other videos is some kind of annoying presentation style which drags and the voice inflections are annoying and unnecessary. Instead a more upbeat normal voice with a faster pace would be better. He sounds drunk or drugged out here and this is one of his worst videos. I don’t need to be lectured to about porn. Given how ridiculous and demanding American women have become, it’s not a bad substitute. Men are opting out of dating, marriage, etc. And for good reason.

            1. Yes Deb, the sales go to charity .. the charity being none other than NutritionFacts.org Dr Greger draws a salary from NutritionFacts since he left his position at the Humane Society.

              I always enjoy Dr Greger’s narration and the information he brings to us. I admit the last few topics are depressing/overwhelming in that it feels like there is zero we can do about it that will make a difference. (Microplastics, wifi and cellphone technologies)

          1. Allan,

            I wonder if it is his voice that you are responding to or the image of him as a “profiting on book sales and youtube videos” and your frustration about women?

            You are right that some men are using it as a substitute. Instead of relationships.

            There is a problem in society that 28,000 people are being raped by people who are inwardly porned into not having a respectful view of other human beings, and that is a genuinely societal “health” problem. Like junk food and processed food.

              1. Allan,

                I am asking these things sincerely.

                Did the topic cause you to want to lash out?

                Topics trigger both males and females.

                When I was a young person, the psychology book had a study in it where men were asked if they believed women liked being abused. They said, “no” and then they were shown pornography where the women were depicted as liking it when men abused them. Afterward, the men were surveyed at the end and they changed their answers to sometimes women like to be abused.

                The types of subjects that men are stimulating themselves on are often threatening to women and women are rising up in society to not tolerate that in their relationships and sometimes women are so aggressive about it that males feel threatened by that.

                The Black community is doing the same process and sometimes the White community feels threatened by how that process is done and the other minorities are trying to rise up and not allow themselves to be disrespected and devalued either.

                Historically, when people are dehumanized or devalued, people abuse them and even murder them without conscience. In fact, they feel entitled to it and justify it that the people want it or deserve it somehow and the groups of people on the other end of that logic need to rise up and not tolerate it or get abused and possibly die.

                I know though that the people who were raised watching the types of pornography which is abusive and dehumanizing to any human being have brain addictions which are so difficult to break free from. Many of the serial killers who were interviewed spoke about their addiction to pornography and called themselves, “sick” inside. It is hard to break free from, similar to drugs. Similar to whole generations raised on junk food. While you are addicted, healthy behaviors look boring and constraining and not at all appealing.

            1. The guy is just another YouTube troll who has come here for entertainment. He hasn’t made a single sensible comment. It’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion with such people.

          2. Wow, Allan what disdain you have. Dr. Greger teaches a lot of info that I see others, such as consumer reports labs, charging money for reports and give you a few details for money. Except they mostly only cover supplements. Dr Greger does it for free. I personally have learned a lot? and I also do a lot of research on my own. But having dr G to tie everything together sure helps.

            Also, I’ve seen at least 2-3 articles on in the news talking about how bad 5g wireless is going to be, and how it’s going to cause health problems. So to say that’s not really what we need to worry about with the internet is ok. And while your kids are getting porn in their in box daily, and constant immersion into suicidal thoughts from distraught, and downtrodden people, it might be more of a concern than 5g.

          3. Are you some kind of idiot? You don’t have to watch/listen to the videos. I actually very much enjoy his voice and the way he presents… it keeps it interesting. So just go crawl back into your hole.

            Of course you knew this was going to be a hot topic video, but I’m ok with it. Lot’s of issues we need to be addressing in this world and I’m thankful Dr. Greger has the courage to do it. I don’t always agree with everything, but his videos are very informative and I for one appreciate the time and effort he puts into his work.

            Don’t let the negative loser trolls keep you from rolling Dr. Greger!

          4. I re-listened to it and the version I am listening to, he doesn’t sound intoxicated at all and he certainly isn’t talking slow.

            There is a very fast-paced, upbeat version that I just listened to

            You have to have the video on the wrong setting.

            1. I can barely keep up and you are telling him to talk faster and more upbeat. He is so upbeat and is such a fast talker.

        2. Sorry to the people who are complaining about Dr. G’s voice because I know that some people are sound sensitive and all that jazz.

          I just sincerely mean it, Dr. Greger, focus on the message. Trying to please an audience as large as yours will just destroy parts of your soul. Don’t let anyone distract you from the big picture. The world is counting on that.

          Dr. Ornish would be someone who is not charismatic until he starts speaking. His message is powerful enough to get him named one of the most interesting people.

    3. Thank you, Olive.

      I believe you have the correct perspective.

      Don’t eat ocean fish because most of it contains significant amounts of Monsanto’s toxic legacy chemistry in them.
      Don’t indulge in porn because it is even more destructive and far more dangerous.

      1. dr cobalt, far more destructive to the human world, not the fish or marine life or the ecosystem ;) Porn and fish free is the way to be! lol… that was terrible.

    4. Olive, I SO AGREE!!!!! And as for your list of its destruction, you forgot to add “society.” I like that you basically pointed out that when people view porn, among other things, they’re basically supporting sex trafficking. It surprises me this isn’t ever brought up, but imagine how many viewing internet porn are unknowingly viewing some sex-trafficked person who is captive, a slave, and forced into this sickening shit.. and people just unwittingly get off on it. Worse are the people who know. Horrible stuff, it’s not ok.

  8. Oh, I thought this was a video on WIFI health effects in general. Although the presneted information is very interesting and important to share. Thank you!

    I wanted to share a link to another talk (34min). It shows what cell phones and mobile and ‘smart’ devices are doing to us and our world.

    Now that 5G is prone to roll out, unless we urge our sometimes for sale or uninformed politicians to think about our health and the viability of our planet, this info is ever more important.

    Please listen: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/taos-new-mexico/

    Blessings to all.

  9. Oh, I thought this was a video on WIFI health effects in general. Although the presneted information is very interesting and important to share. Thank you!

    I wanted to share a link to another talk (34min). It shows what cell phones and mobile and ‘smart’ devices are doing to us and our world.

    Now that 5G is prone to roll out, unless we urge our sometimes for sale or uninformed politicians to think about our health and the viability of our planet, this info is ever more important.

    Please listen: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/taos-new-mexico/

  10. Wow, just wow. This video is so misleading and confused. Such a letdown.
    First of all this video supposedly is about the effects of WiFi on the brain NOT about porn. WTF?
    Secondly the subject of the effects of porn is such a complex topic and deserves much more attention than was given researching this video. Many of the studies done on the subject of porn are HEAVILY biased and politicised, which should come as no surprise to you Dr. Greger.
    Please consider taking this video down or at least redoing it. It does not do your body of work justice.

    1. Yes, I agree with J. The video is very misleading. Please take down this video…My doctor specializes in EFM/R and Wi-Fi does have an effect on the brain.

      1. Most people get their porn etc via wifi. So of course the two topics are linked.

        How bright does anyone have to be to understand the connection?

  11. ‘Professionals Speaking Over Expertise on EMF Exposure Undermines Universities, Medicine, All Jurisdictions Creating Catastrophic Liability Regardless of Intent’

    by Professor Curtis Bennett

    Chief, International Science Advisory Board for IHF(14,000 members)
    Adjunct Professor for Accredited Medical Education For CME Credits
    Thermal Radiation Consultant for 40 Years
    Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal)
    Building Construction Engineering Technologist
    http://www.thermoguy.com
    curtis@thermoguy.com
    Ph: 604-239-2694

    http://www.stayonthetruth.com/professionals-speaking-over-expertise-on-emf-expos.php

  12. I agree that porn can be problematic to a boy’s development. But so can the prudish, body-denying, illusions that we’ve tried to force down the throats of boys.

    Let’s be honest. A boy usually receives no preparation for the fact that one day his sexual glands start producing semen every single day. He is confronted with the choice of masturbating, looking for sex, or developing the iron will of a celibate monk. None of these options is really very good for the child’s personality.

    In my opinion we need to start to find ways to turn sexual drive into a celebration of life.

  13. Great video. I love that Dr. Greger just reports the research and indeed he found the information that was relevant and some that was surprising- its amazing where research can lead us!

    Many obviously didn’t like to be surprised by these findings. The question is, why can’t we be informed about the lifestyle issues of Wifi exposures along with the health issues when they are one in the same.

    I am grateful that Dr. Greger thought it important to alert us all to this new risk to wellness in young adults leave alone the challenges and issues that we grapple with as adults looking for a safe, respectful and life giving way of life.

    A proud and healthy monthly supporter of nutritionfacts.org ;)

  14. I’m going to have to agree with those who feel that there are two distinct unrelated subjects in this video. The first is wifi and it’s possible physiological detriments to our body and second is pornography as it relates behaviorally to young men and consequently women. You see the jump at minute 2:53 where the research mentions pornography but also bullying, suicide, car accidents as well due to internet use. I would have preferred a full video on the wifi-physiology issue and a separate full video on the internet’s relationship to porn, bullying, suicide and car accidents. Both large topics in and of themselves.

    As much as I love NutritionFacts.org, this is one of my pet peeves. And I’ve seen this regularly over the years: the title of the video topic somehow switches to different and sometimes completely unrelated material. This makes it extremely difficult to use the Search function to find the material that you know you saw somewhere on this site but, now, cannot find. Because it’s buried in a video whose title is completely unrelated.
    Thanks for listening:-)

  15. Maybe the headline was a test to see how many paid trolls could be drawn in…paid by the telecom industry maybe?

    The porn information was depressing. I am a woman and a feminist (it’s not a dirty word!). And seeing women victimized and harmed by porn harms all of us.

    “adjective Sometimes fem·i·nis·tic. advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.”

  16. I for one appreciated the discussion.

    Dr. G summarized the current state of research on the physiological effects of WiFi radiation (t=1:10f) saying that over 100 published studies have shown only that results are mixed, with consistent evidence of “changes in the EEGs of resting and sleeping subjects.” We await future research to add to our understanding of the physical risks, if there are any.

    It’s the “other” problem with WiFi that we as a society need to examine. The greatest harm related to WiFi is sociological, rather than physical. IMO the ubiquity and easy access to porn media is a plague in our society. And now that the train has left the station, there’s no way to haul it back in. The best you can do is keep an eye on your kids.

    So, I’m grateful for the video today.

    (Still waiting for that NF video about: Are Humans Singularly The Most Self-Destructive Creatures On The Earth?)

    1. (Still waiting for that NF video about: Are Humans Singularly The Most Self-Destructive Creatures On The Earth?)

      Yes, and the obvious reality that we also may be The Most Other-Destructive and Planet-Destructive Creatures On the Earth.

    2. Wifi is not the internet. One can have and use the internet without wifi using the original dialup technology. Wifi is a technology. Porn as viewed over the internet (via wifi or dialup or any other access mode) is a behavior.

      1. Yes, but it’s all tied together today. Most people watch video materials from cell phones, laptops, or tablets, which are either WiFi driven or 4G driven. My phone gets its web content via an access point (WiFi). Most everyone’s wireless devices today get WiFi through an access point, gateway, router, or some combination. It’s in most coffee shops, restaurants, businesses, airports, colleges, and government buildings. It’s delivering web content everywhere.

        Bottom line is – if I wanted to view porn videos on my laptop, tablet, or cell phone, I would use WiFi to get it. Even if WiFi is not harming me physically, the junk it could deliver to my eyes can cause much more harm, both to me and to the community where I live.

  17. From the transcript: ” “Can Wi-Fi affect brain function?” “To date, more than 100 studies have been published on the effects of [these kinds of] emissions on [human brain wave patterns, as measured by EEG].” “While the results are mixed, a fairly consistent finding is that [even a] short [duration of] exposures to the head [can] produce small, but statistically significant, changes in the EEG of resting and sleeping subjects.” This effect is acknowledged by most health agencies, but the question is: what do you do with that information? For example, a review sponsored by the European governing body concluded that the ‘‘relevance of such small…changes remains unclear,” and we don’t even know how it’s happening at all..”

    Oh please, a bit of history here.

    The government and the telecom industry originally argued that any microwave exposure that does not cause cooking (significant heating) seems harmless because it could not – according to the theory they promoted – have any effects AT ALL. So no need to do any safety tests!

    However over the past 50 years thousand of research studies have disproved this, demonstrating biological effects from microwave exposures far below the level needed for heating, but the telecom industry did their best to hold on to this position – and even managed through lobbyists to get this “science” legislated into law (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “which prohibits discussion of environmental concerns or health concerns . . . in the placement of cell towers” https://mdsafetech.org/telecommunications-act-of-1996/ )

    Recently with large scale studies like the NTP study and the Ramazinni study showing clear evidence for cancer, as well as many other replicated studies showing other adverse effects such as blood brain barrier leakage and DNA damage in animals, this position has finally become untenable even for them, so they then grudgingly agreed that yes, microwaves exposures at levels far below that needed to cause significant heating (and hundreds of time less that the FCC RF Safety standard, and yes Dr. Greger, at levels we get exposed to by WiFi) may even cause a variety of different kinds of damage in animals.

    But they ask, even so what evidence do we have that proves that this has any effect on humans in the real world? And it seems very difficult to prove an effect in humans, because unlike a controlled study in a laboratory, humans undergo exposures to a variety of agents that might cause harm, as Dr. Greger and others have documented – junk food, pesticides, arsenic in rice, microplastics in seafood, etc. etc. so if a human being gets a disease, who can tell what caused it? And even if one has a very strong correlation – say between screen-time, suicide and depression (see: “Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates Among U.S. Adolescents After 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time. Twenge, J.M. et al, 1, Clinical Psychological Science Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp 3-17, 2018. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/teen-suicide.pdf) or of actual brain abnormalities in today’s teenagers (Lin, et al. “Abnormal White Matter Integrity in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder: A Tract-Based Spatial Statistics Study.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256221/ ) that DOESN’T prove anything, after all correlation and causation seem two different things! The tobacco industry manages to effectively use this approach to prevent action for decades, and so has the telecom industry.

    So what would constitute enough proof that microwaves cause damage to humans in the real world to make the government to take action? As best I can tell, a major grassroots uprising prompted by something on the order of a thalidomide level event. And with the continuing exponential increase in human and environmental exposure (see below***), I expect we will get it.

    *** (Check out this December 2018 article on “Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact” from Lancet’s website:
    http://www.thelancet.com/planetary-health

    Scroll down to the summation graphic, and you will see that environmental RF exposure since the forties has increased, not 1000 fold, but 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 18th ) times! And it continues to go up more into ever uncharted territory every year. Many consider Lancet as the most pre-eminent medical journal in the world, and I note the authors gives full credence to the NTP and Ramazzini study results, that showed clear evidence of cancer in animals exposed to cell phone frequency microwaves at levels below the FCC “safe” limit. )

    1. ““To date, more than 100 studies have been published on the effects of [these kinds of] emissions on [human brain wave patterns, as measured by EEG].”

      Let me point out that the majority of studies looking for adverse RF effects stack the deck in favor of getting small, or even no measurable effects not only by only looking at short term gross effects (like reaction times), but by using SIMULATED cell phone or WiFi exposures rather than actual REAL world cell phone or WiFi exposures.

      Simulated exposures often minimize or eliminate the kinds of adverse effects when compared exposures caused by devices operating in the real world, as documented in this 2019 paper: “Comparing DNA damage induced by mobile telephony and other types of man-made electromagnetic fields” Mutation Research-Reviews in Mutation Research 781 (2019) 53–62 reviewing the scientific literature on the effects of microwaves causing DNA damage summed up the situation with regard to REAL WORLD exposures as follows:

      “An extremely important observation is the intense opposition between the results of experimental studies that employ real exposures from commercially available devices (mobile phones or other telecommunication devices), and studies employing simulated exposures from generators or “test” phones with similar but invariant parameters such as intensity, frequency etc. While ∼50% of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects [34–36,84,100–118]. A wide variety of biological and clinical effects are already found to be induced by real-life exposures on a similarly wide variety of animals/biological samples including human volunteers exposed in vivo (19 studies) [19,34,35,100,104,106–109,114,116], human sperm in vitro (2 studies) [23,100], mice or rats or guinea pigs or rabbits in vivo (24 studies) [100,102,103,105,110,111,115,117], Drosophila (11 studies) [15,16,26,31,41,42,100,101,140,141], bees (4 studies) [47,100,118], ants (1 study) [100], chick embryos (3 studies) [36,45,100], quails (1 study) [100], human cells in vitro (2 studies) [100,112], cow brain tissue in vitro (1 study) [113], mouse cells in vitro (1 study), protozoa (1 study), and even purified proteins in vitro (1 study) [100]. From a total of 71 studies reviewed above that employed real exposures 68 recorded significant adverse effects (95.8%) ranging from loss of orientation, kinetic, behavioural, or EEG changes, heart rate changes, effect on cognitive function and memory impairment, effect on cell growth and proliferation, temperature increases in brain tissue, to decrease in male and female reproductive capacity, reproductive declines, molecular changes, changes in enzymatic activity, biochemical changes in the pregnant women and their embryos, DNA damage and cell death, protein damage, and histopathological changes in the brain [34–36,84,100–118].”

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300991

      1. That’s just the signature behaviour of low carb trolls. No cited evidence and no reasoned argument, just verbal abuse and insults.

        many of them appear to be offended by evidence that doesn’t support their beliefs.

        It’s a real chicken and egg question though. Which came first – the poor diet or the poor behaviour?

        ‘higher intakes of saturated fatty acids (SFA) have also been associated with cognitive impairment. Cross-sectional and longitudinal correlational studies indicate that higher intakes of SFA in young adulthood, mid and later life are associated with worse global cognitive function, impairments in prospective memory, memory speed and flexibility and an increased vulnerability to age related deficits and neurological diseases including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease [34,35,36,37].’
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555146/

        I wonder if Larry eats a lot of foods containing saturated fa?

    1. “and full of resources that don’t mean shit.”

      HA! Yeah.. the public medical library means NOTHING… Ruth, well said, but it doesn’t take lack of tact to show the lack of intelligence in our friend Larry Rogers.

  18. Why isn’t small but statistically significant changes to EEG warrant concern?? What about health agencies that do think it is a problem? Surprised at the quick brush off and the leap to porno which really is a separate problem, no? WHy does 5G have sgallower penetration? Why do some studies say this tech can cause cancer? Maybe lowered EEG can lead to violence? I mean really this seems a tad weak to me…Brussels just banned 5G

    Brussels becomes first major city to ban 5G wireless …
    imherald.com/2019/04/05/brussels-becomes-first-major-city-to-ban-5g-wireless-connection/] https://imherald.com/2019/04/05/brussels-becomes-first-major-city-to-ban-5g-wireless-connection/
    Brussels has decided to not follow through with initial plans for a project of providing high-speed 5G wireless internet. The decision was made due to fears for the health of citizens, according to reports. In July, the government concluded an agreement with three telecom operators to relax the strict radiation standards in Brussels.

  19. So, are you a little upset by the nut series?

    It’s okay to say it if you are.

    No need to mince words.

    You don’t really need to bash his daughters quite so hard.

  20. We would get closer to answering the question, does early viewing of aggressive and violent sex have a causal or encouraging effect on the likely future probability of a person’s sexual behaviors when we remember to ask each subject if before, say, the age of 12 did he or she ever experience sexual or violent punishment from parents, school authorities, clerics, or anyone else. There is some reason to believe that some students of some English high schools that disciplined by spankings later seek out a spanking to turn on. During the Pre and concurrent Hitler area, German and Austrian fathers often thought one should give a son a beating to bring up a good man. A famous psychologist later wrote that such regular beatings led children to DID-identify with their own pain and so man grew up able to avoid empathy with people they abused on a family and a national level.
    Until we know what were the very early sexual and punishment experiences of later sexually sadistic or Very Masochistic people, we will lake key information.

    1. Interesting thoughts Gayle.

      As someone who grew up in a lineage where a parent would “take a switch” to a disobedient or wayward child, I remember hearing the story that my Grandfather (as gentle and sweet a man as I’ve ever known, during the time I knew him in his later years) would whip his boys unmercifully when they misbehaved. It got so bad that my Grandmother threatened to leave him if he ever laid a hand on any of those boys again. To my knowledge, none of the boys ever laid a hand on my cousins.

      My Dad, the oldest, was a practitioner of using a belt on my older brothers and threatened me with a good whipping numerous times but never actually spanked me. My poor Mother was pretty much ignored when she told her brood what to do… her biggest threat was saying to my much older brothers “Just wait till your Dad gets home!” He worked long hours driving an oil transport during the 7 year drought meaning farming wouldn’t support the family… but if he got home before the statute of limitations on her anger ran out, punishment was meted out. ‘-)

      Still, my brothers all grew up using little or no “belt justice” on my nephews.

      1. Lonie,

        Thank you for sharing a slice of your family history.

        I remember hearing “Wait until your father gets home” too. Though for the most part, 99.9997% of the time my mother just had to look across the room at us with her “mom look” and that was enough. I think we got belt justice a few times. Only a few. It didn’t wound us mentally, emotionally or physically. It wasn’t done out of anger, nor was it done to excess. We definitely had to misbehave quite a bit to get my mother to resort to that even as a threat.

        1. It didn’t wound us mentally, emotionally or physically. It wasn’t done out of anger, nor was it done to excess.
          ——————————————————————————-
          I think that’s key… we knew what was “bustin’-worthy” so the crime and punishment was sorta spelled out.

          Even parent nonpareil Andy Griffith would give Oppie a whippin’ now and then but he always made Oppie understand it wasn’t personal. ‘-)

  21. I’m increasingly disappointed that Dr Greger strays from the topic of nutrition, which is why I signed up for his videos. Not that I disagree with much of what he says. I happen to agree with him, generally. However, I am interested in his expertise on nutrition not all topics he happens to care strongly about. Please stay on topic.

    1. The way I see it, the topic IS whatever Dr Greger feels like talking about. I am thankful he allows me to listen in, free of charge, and no advertising! What a blessing this site has been to my family. Thank you Dr Greger!

      1. Barb, I was flipping through an issue of Time magazine called ”the science of good and evil” yesterday and they correlated good deeds and good health.

        I was sent to Dr. Ornish and he also goes beyond the wheel well of nutrition and Ed’s in love relationships to his talk.

        As a man think it so he is. I appreciate that Dr. Gregor shares how he thinketh.

        I feel like it is so integral to health that I enjoy it But I acknowledge that it is outside of the nutrition wheel well.

      2. Well said, Barb!! I absolutely agree with your take, and I too am thankful to listen in and learn so much in the process!

        Deb, in the book “The Telomere Effect” there’s reference to an interesting study that showed the telomeres of retired people who volunteered tutoring kids are longer than those retired who didn’t participate in volunteering despite the added stress of dealing with even troubled kids. It showed that the rewards from having a purpose and helping the kids outweighed the stress and even significantly benefited them.

  22. A bit more focus please, this was about Wi-Fi and it’s possible health effects in the first half and turned into talking about youth, pornography and sexual aggression. If I wanted to read/watch the second half’s topics I would go to a different site about these topics, not nutritionfacts.org

    1. Well I’m glad it was addressed here. It ties into cognitive effects of technology exposure and if statistics are being looked at, such as use of an iPad or smart phone and an increase or decrease in a type of behavior, it points out that it could be from the context and not the actual technology. Also, psychology has a LOT to do with physical health, I see all things concerning the health of the body and mind as relevant and appropriate to this site and also simply important information to think about in general. I’m glad NF isn’t something like WebMD for example, it’s an in-depth look at the science and possibilities. I appreciate that very much, I’ve learned so much from Dr. Greger, his team, and even the discussions that go on in the comments here. I’m grateful for all the information presented here and the more, the better!

  23. If I wanted to read/watch the second half’s topics I would go to a different site about these topics, not nutritionfacts.org
    ———————————————————
    Cooulll… gotta link?

  24. Thank you Dr. Greger for your generous sharing of valuable nutritional information. For those who wish information related to EMF radiation and (Gen5) the effects WIFI devices are having on us, including the Smart Meters on our homes. I recommend doing a search at “actualactivists.com and StopTheCrime.net. Professor Barrie Trower discusses a list of illnesses caused by continuous low level microwave radiation. I realize this is off the nutritional track, but I hope this information will be helpful in regards to the environmental health hazards our population is being exposed to unwittingly. You may also wish to see SLAP, acronym for “Secret Large-Scale Atmospheric Program.”

  25. I have a friend who has suffered with EMF for years and has written a book that was just published. The Name of the book is “Pluck: A Faith Based Memoir of Living with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” by Deborah Hyatt. This book is available online through xulonpress.com/bookstore; amazon.com; and barnesandnoble.com. She has already helped numerous people who are suffering with symptoms of EMF that aren’t being diagnosed because the word still needs to get out about this very real disabling condition. Thank you Dr. Gregor for bringing this much needed topic to the fore-front. GOD Bless’ you and your desire to help so many people in so many ways.

  26. Why don’t you try to post an intelligent comment instead of gratuitously insulting someone’s speaking voice?

    We see this sort of behaviour from low carb/keto/paleo trolls all the time. They have no interest in what scientific studies show except in so far as they can support their opinions. Unable to refute inconvenient evidence, they result to personal abuse instead. So your behaviour is familiar. However, it is still unintelligent and unpleasant. Can’t you keep it to yourself or take it somewhere else?

    1. Mr Fumblefingers,

      “Unable to refute inconvenient evidence, they result to personal abuse instead.” Exactly! It’s called an ad hominem argument: attack the messenger instead of the message. Because there is no basis for rebutting the message. It’s an old tactic. Even used by high debate teams, to score points.

  27. Dr. Greger, I think in honor of the last season of Game Of Thrones, you should make a themed video, such as on valerian root! or any updated data on draong’s blood (a tree sap, for those who don’t know). Hehe

      1. hmm, the title of the video ” Does WiFi Radiation Affect Brain Function?” states something that is touched upon at the start of the video, and later the topic changes to online pornography. Honestly, not what I was expecting and not conclusive on the original topic either. What’s happening Dr. Greger and team? Videos used to be much more to the point. The video titled “Toxoplasmosis: A Manipulative Foodborne Brain Parasite” gave me the same impression of going nowhere and making a big fuss.

        Can we go back to the old approach of being, scientific, to the point, and informative, please?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This